On Oct 8, 2007, at 3:38 AM, Geoff Galitz wrote:
> I would argue that the situation you describe is a result of that
> particular RAID adapter or that particular make and model is just
> inappropriate (no offense)
None taken.
I should have been clearer on the point I was trying to make.
First the clarifications:
I never meant to imply that RAID is a backup substitute. Treating it
as such is foolish in a production environment for many obvious
reasons. I mentioned the backup issue here (it was a failure of the
existing backup system, not a standard policy) to explain why the
group in question had to go to such lengths to restore the data that
was on the disks.
The main point that I was trying to make was the the proprietary
nature of the HW raid controller that they used made recovery from a
double disk failure a much more lengthy and expensive process than it
would have been with the software implementation (in this specific
case). For an inexpensive/small installation, I personally feel that
software raid allows for better control and management of resources
with a minimal (if any) performance hit.
That's all I really wanted to say.
-bill "Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player" rankin